No, thank you for sharing your thoughts, contemplative; i'd love to hear more about your holistic:holonic views as they develop.
On Jun 26, 2:27 pm, Contemplative <[email protected]> wrote: > Does it serve man? (I am not disagreeing, just questioning...) > I am going to suggest (for arguments sake) that the economy describes a set > of > (system of)relationships and behaviors of man. Those relationships and > behaviors would > exist regardless of how we chose to describe them. That indicates a > 'natural system' to my > way of thinking. From a broad perspective, such systems evolve in the > interest of the survival > of the species and therefor serve man. However, there is a distinction > between serving man > at that level and serving man at the level of mans will.(using 'man' as > mankind here). I presume > that your are speaking of it as serving mans will.(?) > > Perhaps the problem I have is with the way we talk about the economy. We > talk about it as if it is a complex > machine that we can manipulate as we see fit and as such predict the > outcome. That is plainly not > true as has repeatedly and painfully proven. I guess I would like to hear > it talked about and considered more > as a natural system which is better learned about through observation. In > other words, something we live in instead > of a machine that we drive or operate. I think we could learn a lot more > about ourselves if we were to view it > that way. I also think that we would likely make less drastic mistakes > regarding this system if we were to > approach it this way. > > We need a way to balance between our holistic 'expert' view and the view of > the system as more holonic. > In other words, I don't trust experts.... :-) > > By the way, the source of these wandering rants has been my endeavor to > consume and digest the contents of > the FCIC report which I downloaded and have been snacking/gnawing on for a > couple of months now... I recommend > it by the way. It is not nearly as dry as I would have thought, and > reasonably informative, though I doubt > it could be described as comprehensive. It has been and continues to be a > source of thought provocation for me. > > Once again, thanks for the opportunity...
